About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
the pentagon to allocate the cuts in their best judgment rather than forcing certain cuts on them. that would be one helpful thing, but i think the bargaining power almost requires that we allow it to happen before -- before anybody is going to get serious about their negotiation. i agree. it's a terrible idea, but it's maybe a bad idea whose time has come. >> laura you say it's not next to happen. >> right. >> you say there's no debt crisis. how would you describe the 16 trillion debt. >> so what i would say, look, there were estimates out there at the beginning of the year we needed about $4 trillion to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio. we're about 60% of the way there. we do need additional revenue increases or spending cuts over the next decade, but let me emphasize. over the next decade. not at a moment in time when the economy has 7.9% unemployment and is operating under its capacity to the tune of maybe six percentage points below capacity. this is a terrible time to do what needs to be done, and it's also a terrible way to do it because it's like telling a business you have to cut ever
he knows and doesn't know about the pentagon because he didn't know much. why are the democrats going to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so
if, larry, you get rid of all the waste and abuse that they say is in the pentagon, you're still not going to make a dent in the spending that we need to to bring our budgets back under control. the fact of the matter is president obama not only suggested but he insisted that this sequester become law. you now have democrats running away -- >> it was his idea. and we just clarified that. it was his idea in the first place. why is he trying to worm out of his idea? >> not only the president but the entire democratic party has this righteous indignation over sequester when in fact they were the ones pushing it in the first place. the house has twice passed bills that would bring reasonable spending cuts into law. the senate thus far, we have seen a complete vacuum of leadership. it's time, frankly, for everyone to come to the table and have a reasonable discussion about what meaningful spending cuts would actually take to pass into law. >> catherine, i just want to get your quick take as the libertarian in the group. we've got a little something for everybody here tonight. before i
recently well. today we do have news from lockheed martin, the pentagon's biggest contractor suggesting that actually sales this year will drop by more if the automatic spending cuts kick in and future years will also be materially affected. what is your view on the sector? >> well, right now, there's just a lot of fear but there has been for some time. so there might be a certain degree of recovery, realizing that it is bad but not the apocolypse that some people have painted it as and there is a good chance that some damage might be undone in that interim period. so while we don't like living in uncertainty and while there will be paying under almost any scenario, it certainly doesn't mean the end. there are definitely positives for this industry in the sector. >> which is the greatest threats. automatic spending can cuts or the fact that you have a president who is in his second term and therefore perhaps more able to cut spending programs that might hit particular cities or regions and a new defense secretary. >> you know, it is interesting. of course a lot of that is simply by even
's not going to be any opportunity to cut pentagon spending in any serious way if you don't go over the cliff. so there is some stuff in there that i as a democrat don't like. but i think everybody's going to put something in the pot in order to balance the deficit. we did a lousy job in january on the tax side and i hope that -- i think it's better to go over the cliff than do a lousy job -- >> how many people do you know on your side of the field who actually agree with you? >> very few. look they're politicians. they want to spend as much money as they possibly can and they don't want to pay for it. >> who agrees with you? >> oh, i don't know. i bet -- oh, god, joe agrees with me. >> you forgot. the other thing, howard, and i'm just alluding to it, there will be no return to the bush era tax rates on anyone under $400,000? >> right. >> okay. so take that amount of money, whatever that is per year. how much do you need -- how many loopholes do you need to close? what is the marginal rate have to be on people above 400 to replace that potential revenue? it's 100%, isn't it? >> but i don't --
taking the civilian workers when our country is still at war at the pentagon and putting them on four days a week work is still waste. let those who think they've identified waste and no doubt there are efficiencies that can be found put their proposals forward and let those proposals be weighed in the context of a balanced approach. the question isn't whether we should leave any category immune. the question is whether we should have a balanced approach. and to assume, before anyone has laid out any kind of vision of how that $85 billion a year could be cut, that it must be possible and that everything else has to be ruled out seems to me to be a extraordinarily irresponsible approach. of course there are instances of waste in the federal government. there are also instances of huge unmet needs of diseases where we could find cures that save tens of thousands of people's lives in the next several years. but we're cutting the budget instead and denying ourselves the chances to find those cures. of infrastructure investments where we're risking more bridges collapsing and all we're doi
, you don't care. >> i guess, but i don't. i don't care. >>> the pentagon chief for the f-35 warplane is slamming his partner lockheed martin. he's accusing them of trying to squeeze every nickel out of the u.s. government faults them for seeing the long-term benefits of the project. >>> and tesla ceo eland musk vowing to pay back an energy deficit loan in half the time required by the government. the company receives a doe loan in 2010 and made the first payment of nearly $13 million in december. >> by the way, did you see yesterday -- remember we had -- there was a big debate about the test drive of the tesla in "the new york times." >> yeah. uh-huh. >> and phil lebeau -- >> went well. then edmonds did one yesterday. >> how did that go? >> not so well. the whole interior screen that sort of is the hub of the whole car, it stopped working. >> i don't understand this debate anyway. if you want to go a long trip like that, wouldn't you take a different car? rent a car or -- >> yeah. phil made the point. this is what you do -- >> andrew made the point, too. >> if you feel green and you
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7